Evidence of meeting #106 for Public Safety and National Security in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was charter.
A recording is available from Parliament.
5:05 p.m.
Conservative
Glen Motz Conservative Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB
I guess it's the same thing with my bad shoulder. I failed to ask last time, and because it's the same, I will ask it this time.
I'm unsure why this is being deleted. Can you help me understand?
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
In essence, there are two regimes. One is proposed under the CSE act, and another one already exists under the PSEA, the broader Public Service Employment Act. Mobility provisions of federal civil servants are, and should be, governed by that latter piece of legislation, so this seeks to remove the duplicative CSE provisions. The substantive rights of each employee, therefore, are completely unchanged.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I see a lot of heads nodding. That seems to be a good explanation.
(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Mr. Dubé, on NDP-26.
5:05 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Before I go any further, I do want to state that I would have a recorded vote on this particular amendment.
Essentially, the wording as it currently is in the legislation is “defensive cyber operations or active cyber operations aspects of its”—“its” being the CSE—“mandate must not be directed at a Canadian or at any person in Canada.”
My amendment would add “and must not infringe a right or freedom guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.” This is in keeping with the preamble. Again, it's something that some may argue is redundant, but I feel that the more it's codified, the better.
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Thank you, Mr. Dubé.
Mr. Spengemann, do you want to speak to this amendment?
5:05 p.m.
Liberal
Sven Spengemann Liberal Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON
Even though the language may be very appropriate, this amendment would introduce an unnecessary level of specificity by introducing a charter provision at the end of a very specific provision.
In fact, LIB-30 is going to add an explicit requirement in the legislation that the CSE's activities must comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It will further introduce a requirement that the CSE obtain a ministerial authorization approved by the intelligence commissioner any time it acquires information under its foreign intelligence or cybersecurity mandates that would interfere with a reasonable expectation of privacy on the part of a Canadian or a person in Canada.
It's too specific for the purpose of this amendment, and it will be covered in essence by LIB-30, which will be introduced by my colleague.
April 23rd, 2018 / 5:10 p.m.
NDP
Matthew Dubé NDP Beloeil—Chambly, QC
Mr. Chair, I find that argument kind of odd, given that the bill before us, this Liberal Bill C-59, proposes to CSIS the exact wording that I'm proposing for the aspects of the bill dealing with the CSE.
I would assume that the bill, then, would be causing the same problems that Mr. Spengemann is alluding to already in its initial drafting because it's the same wording that's being proposed to change the CSIS Act. This was brought up by the Canadian Bar Association when they appeared before committee. I'm not sure I follow, but at any rate....
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
5:10 p.m.
Conservative
Blaine Calkins Conservative Red Deer—Lacombe, AB
I have a question for our colleagues here.
With regard to the legislative amendment that's being proposed by my colleague sitting beside me here, are there any examples of where, had that provision been there, the behaviour or the ongoing operations of the organizations would have been different in any way? I'm assuming everybody follows the charter to the best of their abilities and that where there are questions these things get brought forward.
Is this strengthening the legislation? For the folks in the CSE who are in the employ of the Government of Canada to conduct these operations on behalf of Canadians, would this help legislatively? Would it really add anything of value, or is it simply baking into the legislation what's already known?
5:10 p.m.
Director General, Strategic Policy, Planning and Partnerships, Communications Security Establishment
The CSE act was constructed with the charter in mind, so the prohibitions, the tests, the protections, being reviewed, all those elements are to be compliant with the charter.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Pam Damoff Liberal Oakville North—Burlington, ON
To Mr. Dubé's point, is this wording that's already in the legislation for CSIS, and if so, what would be the difference of the impact on CSE?
5:10 p.m.
Senior Policy Advisor, National Security Policy, Public Safety Canada, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I won't necessarily speak to the CSIS Act because I think that language is in there for a different reason. I'll just to go back to the point that we are already bound by the charter, and we already have to comply with the charter in employing the CSE act, so this wouldn't really add anything to the act.
5:10 p.m.
Director General, National Security Policy, Department of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness
I would just add that, obviously, CSE is not targeting its activities to Canadians. For CSIS, that's essential to their mandate, so there's probably more attachment to the phrase of the charter in their act.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
Julie Dabrusin Liberal Toronto—Danforth, ON
I just wanted a second to read through this a bit more carefully as I go through the act. I was wondering if it would be possible for us to suspend for two minutes.
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
5:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
I know.
It may be an opportunity to canvass. I think this meeting is supposed to finish at 5:30 p.m. Is there any appetite to push this for another half hour to six o'clock? We have votes at 7 p.m., and everybody has to be here anyway.
5:10 p.m.
Conservative